If voters didn’t demonstrate a near-saintly ability to forgive candidates for their failings and indiscretions, few would be able to participate in the democratic process at all.

But long before Republicans were asked to absolve Scott McInnis of his occasional Tom Cruise meltdowns, or his imaginary turn as philanthropist, or his fantasy campaign’s real-life payments to his wife, or even his plagiarism (do your own lack of work, for God’s sake), the Republican Party had blown it and blown it good.

If the Democratic Party were to assemble a group of highly trained specialists charged with the sinister plot of constructing a strawman candidate for this moment in history, McInnis would have met with their approval. A lack of sincerity? Check. Ideologically suspect? Check. Ethically compromised? You betcha.

And though genuine policy debates will on rare occasions break out during elections, the very presence of McInnis in the race ensured that we’d be talking about one thing: McInnis.

During the many political events I’ve attended this past year — events where conservatives from every social strata mingle to grumble about the state of the country — I am not exaggerating when I say that not once did I detect a globule of enthusiasm over the prospect of voting for McInnis. A duty, perhaps, but nothing more.

That’s a shame. Republicans around the country are energized by a diverse group of candidates from a variety of backgrounds: from youthful political veterans like Marco Rubio in Florida to political neophytes like former eBay CEO Meg Whitman in California, the establishment and the grass roots have often found palatable choices ready for an ideological debate.

Yet, in Colorado, the tin-earned Republican kingmakers dampen enthusiasm with their stale picks and then hire the same campaign staffs to lose one election after the next. One day, perhaps these guys will realize that name recognition isn’t very important if no one likes your name.

Of course, clearing a primary field is not exactly unique to Colorado Republicans (see the Andrew Romanoff/

Obama administration kerfuffle). Just for a change of pace, though, why not clear it for a young talent or a bright light of the private sector? This is the era the organic win (Scott Brown), after all, not the coronation (Bob Bennett).

Now the same Republican leaders are meeting, frantically trying to figure out how to repair their own blunder. Once again, doubtlessly, they will turn to the most obvious of choices — and inevitably their machinations, should they be able to fix this, will be perceived like another attempt to undermine the voice of grass-roots conservatives in Colorado.

What else can they do? They’re stuck with Dan Maes. No credible candidate will expend the energy to compete in a primary against the establishment.

But Maes will be unacceptable to business donors, to national donors, and he will be unacceptable to most voters — not because he’s an insurgent or because he has wild ideas, but because he is strikingly unprepared for the role of governor. It won’t take long before this fact becomes apparent to anyone who watches a debate.

While the prevailing national anxiety about Washington might save some flawed Republican candidates, it’s unlikely to happen in the governor’s race constituted as is.

Certainly if the GOP was up against an unpopular governor or a leftist ideologue, they’d have a shot. But perception — and in most cases, the reality — is that John Hickenlooper isn’t exactly Bill Ritter or Barack Obama.

So for all those Republicans angered by the media’s left-wing bias in uncovering facts about McInnis’ past, perhaps they should re-focus all that righteous anger on the Republican leadership that creates these predictable messes.

It’s the same leadership that so often asks its candidates one vital question: Can you stand in line and wait your turn?